A pedestrian who authorities say was struck by a vehicle in Hays County on Saturday evening was found dead hours after the driver came into contact with a deputy and failed to report the crash, Texas Department of Public Safety officials said.

Michael Delaney May, 32, was found dead off the roadway on Goforth Road, DPS officials said. Troopers were called at 7:51 a.m. Sunday to investigate the incident, but investigators determined May had been hit the night before, DPS officials said.

The owner of a nearby Hays County business told troopers that his security cameras caught a partial glimpse of the crash, which DPS officials said helped them identify the hit-and-run suspect as 22-year-old Tony Ponce-Zamora.

Troopers tracked Ponce-Zamora down and detained him on Sunday after he admitted to driving the vehicle at the time of the crash and leaving the scene, DPS officials said.

Hays County sheriff’s officials said a deputy interacted with Ponce-Zamora the night before, but Ponce-Zamora failed to inform the officer about the crash.

. . . .

“Due to Ponce withholding this information, (May) was not given medical attention and died due to his injuries,” DPS officials said in a statement.

Ponce-Zamora is now in the Hays County Jail on a charge of fail to stop and render aid resulting in death and is being held on an ICE detainer and a $50,000 bail, records show.

Hays County is not far from Austin, which is trying to be a sanctuary city protecting people like Ponce-Zamora from the immigration officials who would deport him.

I doubt May’s story will get the national attention that was paid to the story of Kate Steinle, but May was a human being, like her and you and me.

7/4/2015

The murder of 31-year-old Kate Steinle at Pier 14 in San Francisco could have been prevented. Before the murder, authorities had the confessed killer in custody, and knew he was an illegal alien. ICE had told them. But, thanks to San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, police knowingly let him go.

The man accused of gunning down a 32-year-old Pleasanton woman while she was out strolling San Francisco’s Embarcadero with her father was in a Bay Area jail less than four months ago and should have been turned over to federal immigration officials upon his release, instead of being set free, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

But that’s not the way the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Legal Counsel Freya Horne sees it. In an interview Friday with NBC Bay Area, she said the city and county of San Francisco are sanctuaries for immigrants, and they do not turn over undocumented people – if they don’t have active warrants out for them – simply because immigration officials want them to.

. . . .

San Francisco Police Officer Grace Gatpandan Gatpandan added that San Francisco is a “sanctuary city, so we do not hand over people to ICE.” She also said that the police are “not responsible” for Sanchez once he is booked into county jail, “meaning we do not have control over his release.”

Everybody in this story is pointing the finger at someone else, but everyone is complicit. The police complain that they were required to release Sanchez. But ICE notes that, actually, police could simply have notified ICE that they were going to release him: “The federal law enforcement source told CNN the sheriff’s department ‘didn’t even need to hold him. They simply could have notified that they were going to release him and we would have gotten him.'”

Obama and the feds (ICE) are not off the hook here, either.

ICE is pointing its finger at the San Francisco policy and the police, but consider: ICE had this guy first, and released him to a sanctuary city, knowing they would probably let him go. According to CNN, “ICE said it turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities on March 26 for an outstanding drug warrant.” NBC tells us that this case was “a marijuana case that was about 20 years old.”

So: ICE officials knew Sanchez had been deported 5 times before. They knew that, after his last deportation, he was convicted of illegal re-entry and served several years in federal prison. But, upon his release from federal prison, rather than deport him, they turned him over to San Francisco officials for a 20-year-old marijuana case, knowing that San Francisco has this sanctuary policy. Shockingly, the D.A. declined to pursue the case, leading to his release (rather than being returned to ICE custody).

Federal officials should refuse to turn over illegal aliens to sanctuary cities for state prosecutions, unless the state prosecutions are for crimes of violence, or crimes in which the alien is facing several years in prison. Turning over aliens to sanctuary cities, for potential prosecution for low-level non-violent crimes for which they face little time in custody, is tantamount to releasing them outright. Federal officials have the right to say: “if you want to prosecute this guy, you sign a document saying you will return him to us. Otherwise you don’t get him at all. We will deport him.”

The failure to implement this policy is squarely on Obama. And the refusal to secure the border, allowing this guy to come back again and again and again, is also on Obama and the Democrats.

7/12/2012

A day care employee who police say ran a red light and crashed a van full of kids on Monday is in the country illegally and doesn’t even have a driver’s license, according to investigators, KHOU-TV (Channel 11) is reporting.

IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THAT EVIL SUV! “Scott wrote here about the appalling case of a 16-year-old St. Paul girl, Clarisse Grime, who was sitting in the grass at her high school, nowhere near the street, when she was struck and killed by a vehicle that careened out of control and bounced off a fire hydrant. The vehicle was driven by an illegal immigrant who has been in Minnesota for ten years without ever having a driver’s license. He was known to local authorities, having been convicted of drunk driving in 2001 and driving without a license just a few months ago. But the immigration laws are not enforced in St. Paul. So today, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported on Miss Grime’s funeral. This was the paper’s headline: ‘St. Paul teen killed by SUV remembered at her funeral.’ Killed by SUV? That doesn’t really seem to be the salient point.”

No, but focusing on it helps avoid the salient point. Which is, you know . . . the point.

It’s happening all over the country. You’ll see it if you look for it.

A day after authorities arrested a suspect in connection with the brutal slayings of five people in a San Francisco home, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say the accused killer had eluded deportation and instead had to be released from custody in 2006.

San Francisco police have connected Binh Thai Luc, 35, of San Francisco with the grotesque killings of three men and two women, who were discovered dead about 7:45 a.m. Friday by a woman who had access to the house. Officials arrested Luc on Sunday and alluded to his having a criminal history.

On Monday, officials said Luc had been taken into ICE custody in August 2006 as he was serving a prison sentence at San Quentin State Prison for assault and attempted robbery. Officials say he was ordered to be removed from the country by an immigration judge a month later, but because Vietnamese authorities declined to provide appropriate travel documents, Luc could not be deported and had to be released in December 2006.

Vietnam didn’t want their robber back? Now there’s a shocker.

I think it’s about time we told countries that we don’t care if they don’t want their criminals back. They are their problem, not ours. If they don’t like it, no more American cash.

So that’s one issue. But this one was obvious: of course we should deport robbers. I keep hearing, though, that we are being meanies by wanting to deport illegals who commit minor crimes, like DUIs. OK . . . and when we don’t, here’s what can happen:

Immigration officials confirmed Monday that the suspect in an alleged drunken driving wreck that killed one boy and critically injured another was in the country illegally.

Luis Hector Lopez-Rodriguez, 27, of San Luis Potosi, Mexico, is accused of plowing into the porch of a southwest Houston apartment, where two young boys were playing during a March 17 party, authorities said.

Gregory Palmore, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said agents have determined that Lopez-Rodriguez was in the country illegally and have filed paperwork to detain him. Palmore said ICE officials had no prior contact with Lopez-Rodriguez, who was convicted of driving while intoxicated in Harris County in January 2008.

. . . .

Jesus Ordonez, 7, was taken to Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Christopher Cruz, 4, suffered burns on more than 40 percent of his body after the car slammed into a hot grill, authorities said.

Yeah, they had no contact with him because they didn’t start their program until later in 2008:

Immigration officials launched a jail screening program called Secure Communities in the Harris County Jail in the fall of 2008 . . .

Look, I understand that we don’t have the resources to deport all illegal immigrants. But it seems like a no-brainer to start with the criminals. If a single immigration agent is worrying himself with illegals who have not already been convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant jail time, while illegals are being deliberately released from jail, there is something seriously wrong.

I reiterated the idea in March 2005 and December 2006. And I started a crusade with my multi-part series “Deport the Criminalst First” campaign in May 2007.

It’s sometimes fun on this blog for me to call myself Carnac by talking about the correct predictions I have made and so forth. But it’s actually no fun being Carnac when you realize that actual lives would have been saved — like that of the seven-year-old boy above — if people had just listened to you earlier.

By the way, if you’re still opposing identifying criminal aliens in jail, even those convicted of “minor” crimes like DUI, you’re part of the problem — and the blood of children like Jesus Ordonez is on your hands.

1/28/2012

A bill being drafted by a state legislator would limit local law enforcement from holding arrestees on behalf of immigration authorities seeking to deport them.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) said he is finalizing amendments to a bill that would be the first statewide measure to counter the Secure Communities enforcement program, which requires law enforcement agencies to forward to immigration authorities the fingerprints of all arrestees booked into local jails.

If those authorities identify a candidate for deportation, they can issue a detainer, which asks the agency to hold them beyond the time when they would normally be released so immigration agents can take custody. The program has come under fire because many of those ensnared have never been convicted of crimes or are low-level offenders.

When states like California or Arizona have tried to pass legislation that helps the federal government enforce federal immigration law, the immigrants’ rights advocates always tell us those law are illegal — because federal law is supreme in the area of immigration. So, local laws can’t touch on immigration (so the argument goes) because that steps on federal toes.

(I have never understood this argument, because helping the feds enforce the law can’t be seen as stepping on their toes . . . can it??)

Where is the “federal preemption” crowd here? This law explicitly seeks to interfere with federal programs designed to catch people in custody who have violated our immigration laws. Wouldn’t that . . . step on federal toes?

What needs to be remembered is that people who are subject to deportation have already violated the law. What’s more, if they have been arrested, they are on average more likely to be among the least desirable among those who have violated our immigration laws. A “Deport the Criminals First” policy uses our limited resources in the manner that best protects public safety, by concentrating on people who have (by and large) committed crimes other than violating immigration laws. Because criminals are more dangerous than non-criminals, this policy saves lives. And even if it turns out that they didn’t commit other crimes, they still violated immigration laws anyway, and we have them in custody.

Ammiano’s plan is an open borders plan: EVERYONE is welcome, including the diseased, the immoral, and the criminal. Our country is a country of immigrants, but we have the right to control which immigrants are allowed to enter, to keep the country healthy and safe. Orderly immigration laws seek to import immigrants who are not criminals or afflicted with communicable diseases. A policy of simply throwing open the borders removes these checks, which has the effect of welcoming people with TB and serious criminal histories. I don’t see why our country needs to be burdened with a crop of undesirables (criminals) when we have insufficient resources to take care of the people we already have.

The U.S. is fishing for illegals. We can’t catch every fish in the sea, but we can catch some. Ammiano wants to take the fish that are already in the net and throw them back out to sea. That only makes sense if you think fishing is morally wrong.

Me, I don’t think it is. And I don’t think deporting criminal illegals is wrong either.

8/18/2011

In a move that could shake up the U.S. immigration system, the Department of Homeland Security is going to begin reviewing all 300,000 pending deportation cases in federal immigration courts to determine which individuals meet specific criteria for removal and to focus on “our highest priorities.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said the review will enhance public safety. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons,” Napolitano wrote Thursday in a letter to assistant majority leader Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and 21 other senators including Indiana Republican Richard Lugar.

***

But the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which advocates changing policies to decrease the number of immigrants coming to the United States, said in a statement on its website that the action by the Obama administration “amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s immigration policy without approval by Congress.”

Patterico has long championed the idea of “Deport the Criminals First.” However, a review of the June ICE memo (.pdf) detaling the new policy makes clear that the prosecutorial discretion involved is not limited to prioritizing deportations, but decisions to arrest, settle or dismiss proceedings, defer action, grant parole, etc. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times describes the new policy as “virtually stopping deporting students who are in the U.S. illegally, taking steps even as Congress has resisted passing the DREAM Act.” Sen. Durbin issued a statement adding that when reviews of individual cases result in cases being closed, those individuals “will be able to apply for certain immigration benefits, including work authorization.”

So… if not backdoor amnesty, a big step in that direction. Sweet, to her credit, duly notes that the move came as Hispanic groups have been stepping up complaints about Obama’s illegal immigration policy.

The city of Escondido in California is concentrating on deporting illegal aliens with a criminal record.

If you cover this story, you can choose to illustrate the effects by giving anecdotes concerning: a) a person who was victimized by an illegal alien criminal; b) an anecdote of a low-level offender who will be deported — poor guy!

It was just an inconvenient traffic stop on the way through town for Javier Barrera Saldivar. Police had spotted the broken tail light on his car, and he figured he’d get a fix-it ticket and be on his way. But federal immigration officers soon rolled up, wielding handcuffs and Barrera’s mug shot on a cellphone.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have been stationed at the Police Department of this San Diego County city since May, responding to everything from traffic stops to gang sweeps in an aggressive effort to clear the community of illegal immigrants with deportation orders or criminal records.

Barrera, 24, the records showed, was a previously deported illegal immigrant with convictions for drunk driving and possessing a false driver’s license. Instead of receiving a traffic citation and being released — which is what typically would have occurred — he was arrested and placed in deportation proceedings.

We get the typical claptrap about racial profiling and about how Latinos are “on edge.” We don’t get ANY context about why the government might actually want to Deport the Criminals First.

The story reinforces the theme: some of these people have done nothing more than be illegal immigrants. Uh, and drunk drivers. Uh, and child molesters. WHY DON’T WE GO AFTER THE “REAL” CRIMINALS??!!!1!!1

But critics contend that most detainees are people with drunk driving convictions from long ago who are hardly criminals.

. . . .

When Salvador Santoyo Juarez, 61, was pulled over last month for a having tinted windows in his car, an immigration check revealed that he had convictions for child molestation, drug transportation and drunk driving — all more than 20 years old.

To his family, the grandfather of eight was hardly a threat to the community, spending most of his days resting his injured hip in front of the television. His wife, Carmen, 54, said his deportation would tear the family apart. “There are so many bad people, and they focus on the one who does nothing,” she said. “How sad.”

Yeah, some of them are “only” illegal alien drunk drivers. Never mind that the government has the authority and duty to deport any illegal alien it comes in contact with — regardless of whether they have committed other crimes. Place that issue to one side for the moment.

And ask yourself: does this article have any stories about people killed by illegal alien drunk drivers? It’s not like those stories don’t exist. For example, the paper could tell us about any of these people who were killed by illegal alien drunk drivers:

The man charged in connection with the Sunday crash that took the life of a Bristow nun is an illegal alien who was out on bond awaiting a deportation hearing, police said Monday.

Prince William County police notified U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials about the status of Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, 23, of Bristow after both his first and second drunken driving arrests, said county police spokesman Jonathan Perok.

. . . .

Police say Martinelly swerved off the right side of the road, hit a guardrail, careened across the incoming lanes, hit a jersey wall and then slammed head on into a Toyota carrying the three nuns.

Sister Denise Mosier was killed instantly, and two others were flown to the hospital, where they remained Monday in critical but stable condition, police said. . . . Sunday’s crash marked his third drunken driving arrest in five years.

. . . .

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of Supervisors, called the nun’s death “appalling.“

“The despicable thing is that this criminal was … handed over to ICE twice, and released by ICE twice. He’s gone out an killed a nun. That’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with immigration enforcement in this country,” said Stewart, who has drafted legislation for stricter illegal immigration laws statewide. “The blame is on representatives in Congress for being so flaccid on the issue, and they continue not to fund the deportation of illegal immigrants in this country.”

7/29/2010

On this blog I have had a recurring series called “Deport the Criminals First.” The idea is that, unless you are in favor of a complete open border policy, you would want to see the most undesirable illegal immigrants deported first: criminals, starting with violent criminals. I have therefore advocated checking the immigration status of every person arrested for a crime, especially violent crimes, and ensuring that we have sufficient resources to identify and deport violent criminals once they have served their sentences.

I see this as a completely noncontroversial and bipartisan proposal. I have repeatedly highlighted the tragic and often fatal consequences that visit victims when law enforcement fails to take this very basic step.

Professor William Jacobsen notes that, in the most startling portion of yesterday’s outrageous decision blocking implementation of most of Arizona’s immigration law, law enforcement officials are now apparently prevented from running such basic, common-sense immigration checks:

The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.

. . . . [S]tates already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders, and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person or burden some federal agency.

The Judge’s reasoning, particularly that the status check provision violated the 4th Amendment even as to persons already under arrest, applies just as easily to these other status checks.

With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on “comprehensive” immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will [e]nsure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.

Understand clearly what is happening, according to Professor Jacobsen. Officials who arrest illegal immigrants for crimes, even violent ones, are apparently blocked from checking the immigration status of those suspects, under the reasoning of a decision that invalidates as unconstitutional a policy requiring such checks.

I have not read the ruling myself to verify this, but if this is true, it is stunning.

This can’t get to the Supreme Court fast enough. Let’s hope it gets there before Obama packs the court with more liberals who would turn a blind eye to common sense.

5/28/2010

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is the latest to weigh in with criticism of Arizona’s SB 1070, saying that “[c]rime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or any other state.” Sadly, in his critique of the law he resorted to a common distortion of what it actually says. Today on Pajamas Media, I respond:

Assuming the L.A. Times has accurately paraphrased Beck’s statement, we can reach either of two possible conclusions: that he is misinformed on the language of the new law, or he is deliberately distorting the truth to serve a political agenda. Neither choice is comforting.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.